Linux-based handheld debuts in India

TalkBack 17 of 31:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

No, pish-tushing what I've heard often.: Let's clear the factual assertion first:
To my comment:
"Open source is no way to build a hugely profitable software industry."
you replied:
Really. Well, I tell you what: Why don't you go tell that to IBM? I'm sure they'll welcome the correction to their strategy, and will be happy to go back to banging their head against the stony gates of Castle Redmond.

IBM still moves a lot of Microsoft product, more than they'd prefer.
Admittedly, IBM also exploits the work of open source volunteers to lower their prices enough to win contracts for hardware and services. Software is not much of a profit center when it's given away.
Their success with this strategy has damaged expensive Unixes severely and cost a lot of jobs on their own staff, Unix development staffs, and the staffs of companies whose IT they've taken over.
I know, IBM is not the only one using Open Source to reduce jobs and salaries, but naming IBM makes concrete the image of the money from the livelihoods of thousands being compacted and fed into the maws (read: contributing to the bonuses of) executives. Makes the achievement of Open Source software to date more clear.
IBM is also furthering the bait-and-switch that helps Open Source continue. Some of the people working on Open Source think they're attacking Microsoft rather than Unix.
So far Microsoft is just about unscathed, though that could change if a number of governments pass laws criminalizing use of Microsoft products in order to gain control of the software used in their jurisdictions. Some governments and enterprises might even choose Open Source for economic reasons, and so long as it helps maintain employment I won't criticize them.

Okay, now that the facts have been stated...

You wrote:
First, it's important to understand the difference between this "home-grown" comuter and Ghandi/Nehru satyagraha. From the earliest conceptual descriptions, Simputer was imagined as a platform that could be useful throughout the third world and emerging world.

Isn't this a hardware device with software specialized for certain purposes? I'm not getting the reference to 'platform'.
Also, the 'third world' and the 'emerging world' are not where the money is. Doesn't mean that effective devices shouldn't be aimed at this market. Does mean that the number of products the market can absorb will be limited and that the amount that can be charged will limit profits.

You run into this problem when you say in your third point:
Third, it's easy to look at the R19K ($450) price and say "that's no good for poor people." You're right -- it's too high. But a) that's not the poor person's model (they'd use the $250 model), and b) the idea behind the Simputer platform was that it would be used by several people -- possibly shared among a whole village.

Yes, many very poor people will be able to afford $250 for a device that does not contribute directly to producing food or income.
And the idea of a village banding together to purchase a device that can be viewed and used by one person at a time, and which won't contribute to subsistence in any obvious way...
Ideals are fine, but the price point for what the device would produce is unrealistic. A back-country pc similar to Thailand's (and using Windows, maybe) would be far cheaper and at least as effective.

Your second point is worthwhile:
Second, it's important to understand that the tendency in India and China to produce their own software isn't really a matter of economics, as much as it is a matter of making software that makes sense locally.
[Your discussion next veers into hardware, so I'll stop quoting here.]
As long as 'makes sense locally' doesn't mean the government building in its own tyrannical DRM, agreed. There are, for instance, language groups too small for a company like Microsoft to deal with. So if the government wishes to provide Microsoft with technical assistance for a back-country edition of Windows, that would be fine.
Of course, you can't mean that the 'developing' world can get by on software with fewer capabilities than the rest of the world. You wouldn't intend to limit peoples' futures.

That may be the main difference in our points of view. I think that the current situation in the third world is a way station, a measurable distance from the happy, Microsoft consuming world that defines success these days. The problem is not the goal, it's how to help get people where they belong. If the capabilities have to be limited now, at least those capabilities should provide experience useful when less limited capabilities become available.

The alternative is satyagraha or the Great Leap Forward, an ambitious turning in with the idea that talented people can catch up with the rest of the world simply by their own efforts. Doesn't work that way.
China and India are seeing progress, at least in money coming into the country, because they opened up.
That's another good reason to be open to the best the rest of the world has to offer: Microsoft and particularly Windows.

[Note: some statements in this post are facetious and do not represent the actual views of the author. However, the factual observations are accurate and the basic principles identified are correct.]

Truth of the matter is that if your industry is built around commodity software development (as India's is), then Open Source platforms are the best foundation to start from. You seem to make the common error of assuming that basing your software on an OS platform means you can't sell it. You can, of course, and if you play your license right you don't even have to open-source it.; Posted by: Anton Philidor Posted on: 03/30/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use